Response: The concept of the "investigatory question" is easiest to understand when asking questions such as, "How did Joe receive the injury to his wrist...?" or "Did Loretta slap Fred...?" The missing funds situation is one of the more difficult.

Clearly the question, "Who took the funds?" is somewhat loaded. It implies that the funds were improperly removed; however, it is possible that the money was simply lost, misplaced or deposited in the wrong account. Even the question, "Are there funds missing?" is inadequate. Certainly there would be no investigation if something hadn't turned up missing at some point, but it is only when the money is determined not to be where it was expected that an investigation would even begin.

Perhaps the important point here is to first establish that something is actually missing. This process is not an investigation in the sense that we ordinarily understand it. Someone who notices that there is money missing from a drawer would first want to check a wallet, pants and other locations where the money might ordinarily be kept before considering that there is possible untoward behavior. And yet remember, the investigatory question ought not be, "Who took the funds?" It is still possible that an investigation will discover that they were simply lost or misplaced by their owner.

Perhaps the best way to phrase the question in this case would be to ask something like: "Where is the money that was discovered missing from Joe's room at 3:00 p.m. June 30, 2003?" This doesn't point a finger, but it does suggest a focus that if fully answered would probably go a long way toward determining whether misconduct occurred.